News and Thanet issues. Ramsgate Margate and Broadstairs are the three main towns on The Isle of Thanet situated in the far southeast of England.
I run the bookshop in Ramsgate see www.michaelsbookshop.com I publish over 100 books about the history of this area click here to look at them.

Tuesday, 5 February 2013

Roger Gale Makes Same Sex Marriage a local Issue

I generally avoid national political issues on this blog,
but one way or another Roger Gale has made the same sex marriage issue a Thanet
issue.

Roger is very much seen as a major Thanet spokesman and whether
his comments in parliament were due to a poorly thought out and presented
speech or he really does equate homosexuality to incest is immaterial to me.

I guess most of the blog readers will have heard and seen
him on the news today and regardless of their views on same sex marriage will
be unhappy about one of our local MPs appearing to have joined the lunatic
fringe of those who have recently been using unreasonable arguments to try and
swing parliaments vote on this one.

I should make it quite clear that I find people accusing
those against same sex marriage because of their religious beliefs as
reprehensible as those equating homosexuality to incest, or any other illegal
sexual activity.

More on this when my ire has cooled a bit. No picture
at the moment I am trying hard to resist a cartoon.

175 comments:

Whether we agree with his opinion or not, I think he should be admired for sticking to what HE believes is right, unlike others who are too afraid to speak up publicly because of the possible repercussions. I just hope that he's not judged purely on this, at the cost of all the other good work he's done - and continues to do - for the people of Thanet (I personally would quite possibly have been made homeless without his help a few years back, despite the fact that he didn't even know me).

well, that seems like the most logical argument...haha. Peter, I think people are apathetic and will vote for whatevers easiest. Im sure he's not all bad. But likening homosexual marriage to incest is not the way to win the vote of anyone really.

I think the coments and commentary on your post says far more about the problems relating to this issue than anything I could or should contribute.

We have here a government with no mandate for change or redefinition of marriage; that has ignored the biggest ever response to a petition on record; all ostensibly in the name of strengthening marriage. Marriage, and its automatic links to family and bringing up children in safety and security, has, at a stroke, been reduced to a utilitarian contract of comfort and mutual support between any two individuals. This has been undertaken in the name of equality, one of the many politically correct myths which surround so much of our public life today, which concentrates more on the grey uniformity of identical outcome rather than the harder and more honest task of recognising and embracing real, natural differences. In political terms, a conservative administration has finally given way to the socialist demand for the destruction of family life and family values which provide the greatest stumbling block to ensuring family and individual come before state. And yet you are surprised it leads to leading figures agonising about the abandonment of the values and principles by which many of their constituents have dedicated their whole lives? The downside of blogs is that instant comment, like instant coffee can be tasteless and without the true flavour and richness that comment on serious issues like this should create. Shame on our government and its willingness to destroy the uniqueness of the arrangements which underpin the most basic building block of our society, the family, and the marriage between a man and a woman which is its basis. There will be many out there this morning who feel far more betrayed by government, than any who cannot look beyond the editing of speeches to create headlines. The reality is that few of those who have been devastated by this change will ever rad a blog - they simply go about their daily lives as best they are able, forming the backbone of our stability and society.

Thank you Chris, for expressing so eloquently the view held by many. And congratulations to Sir Roger for standing up and being counted as we are washed away in a deluge of liberalism, shamefully abetted by Cameron. Please may the Tories now ditch him, so at least there is a voting choice for true Conservatives.

Chris I think you may have missed my point here, which was not what he said which with his subsequent explanation made some sense, but the way he said it, which took a sensitive issue and brought in the loony aspect of equating homosexuality with illegal sexual activity.

However I would guess most of the people who saw him saying what he did in parliament on the TV are left wondering what he really meant and if he holds this peculiar view.

To me, and I may have got this confused, what he did was stood up and said something that equated to, all those who have divorced and remarried are bigamists because at some time in the past they could have been considered thus, and then qualified this by saying he really thought something else.

I think, Michael, you are, as ever, somewhat unable to process others views objectively, without imposing your own interpretation. You are perfectly entitled to your own view, but with this, as on previous occasions, you simply become incapable of representing views that clash with your own in anything even trying to be objective; and then suggest I misunderstand you!!! As I have said elsewhere, Sir Roger has talked about this element of civil partnerships over at least 5 years - and never attracted your attention before. Intersting that, dont you think?

So Chris, with homosexuality legislation over the past few decades obviously changing what you perceive to be proper family values. Moving from a situation where homosexuals were imprisoned to the situation we have today, where we have pretty much arrived at a situation where it will be normal and legal for same sex or transgender couples to be ordinarily married with their own or adopted children, where do you think the line should have been drawn?

Hmm, an interesting one this one. Having read his comments, it seems that he is saying that either make everyone equal or don't. ie, there should be a civil union bill which applies to everyone. Not entirely sure he is comparing gay marriage to incest - but of course interpreting it this way is a headline grabber whereas what he's saying isn't !

I wonder how many of the electorate will suddenly be up in arms over this? It must be obvious that he's had his views for a very long time yet he still keeps getting re-elected - which would suggest that there are more people who are on his side than are not. Don't forget, these MPs are elected by us and work for us and must therefore represent our (collective) views.

And before I'm accused of being a tory or a bigot or anything like that, I'm not saying I agree with him, in fact I'm a little apathetic over the whole issue as it doesn't really impact my life. I just try to read the words people say and look at them objectively.

She lost mine as well for not speaking out against this insidious legislation which undermines the centuries old principle of marriage being a union between man and woman for the procreation of species and the upbringing of children. There was no public demand for this, not even amongst many gays who were quire happy with civil partnerships, and it is just an attempt by Cameron to make the Tories more PC. That he has failed miserably will be demonstrated in 2015 when he hands the next election on a plate to Labour. Labour, incidentally, who never had the guts to introduce this legislation themselves when in office for thirteen years, but who endorse it wholeheartedly when in opposition.

No, Michael, for by 2015 there will probably be no turning back, but Cameron has lost my vote, after over thirty years as a Conservative voter and activist along with at least five members of my family. As Laura Sandys heeded the Cameron call to vote for this legislation that goes for her aswell and in the 2010 we delivered leaflets, knocked on doors and stood as tellers at polling booths. Not next time I am afraid and it is the dishonesty of introducing something not in the manfesto that sticks in the throat as much as the legislation itself. If they can do that this time, what next and how much faith could we put in the promised EU referendum. Labour may be crap but at least one knows it beforehand. Better was expected of Cameron.

Apologies for some of the anonymous comment that appeared here overnight, there were two comments, repeated in several places, that were a string of obscenities mixed with libels relating famous people. I have had quite a few similar comments on this blog and the press release blog recently, usually the same comment appears in several different places.

I had assumed these comments were just part of storm of spam infecting all blogs however there is also the possibility that they are just directed at the blogs I run.

I have made it very clear in the past that my children and their friends read this blog and that comment containing obscenities will be deleted out of hand, there is no adult content warning on the blog and so comment must conform to general readership.

That said I have to assume there is also a chance that this is another attempt to cause this blog to be closed down by someone with their own agenda.

And Jesus sayeth "If a man smite thee on one cheek turn thee the other cheek also"

Both the Kray twins were gay. But a lot of people agree there would have been hell on if they had both come out.

FFS five gay people equality so they shut the hell up. And the rest of us can get some piece.

I been on the planet a long while. And I have noticed that gay men are attractive to women. But God levelled the playing field for ugly brutes like me by making the attractive lads gay. Hence women settle for ugly twats like myself and if the woman keep a gay male friend he takes all her earhole because he has more empathy.

Every man/woman marriage should have a gay friend. In fact this has probably been the recipe for the successful marriages lauded by Gale and Wells.

Well this debate is certainly bringing out the nutters although I think Michael has made it more of a local issue than Roger Gale did. He simply spoke in Westminster on a free vote issue from his own beliefs nor did he equate homosexuality to incest. The parrallel, if there was one, was simply on the basis that where do you draw the line. Marriage is for man and woman, civil partnership is for same sex union and incest is illegal thus it is possible to have difference without endangering equality. However, if you demand total equality, why shouldn't a man marry his sister? This was because inter breeding is damaging to the offspring, but this would not be so if a man married his brother. All gets a bit messy when you start tampering with the rules by which mankind has lived for centuries! Mind you, I suppose the bisexual could marry both brother and sister simultaneously.

Tom an interesting thought there, that I could make it more of a local issue by posting about it here, than a Thanet MP talking about it in parliament and subsequently featuring substantively in the nation media.

I really don’t think you are right about that, I do however think that I was right to post about it because it was one of our MPs who didn’t just vote with his conscience in a free vote, but decided to make this strange speech open to various interpretations.

Never said you were wrong to post it and it is an issue which creates strong passions and divisions, perhaps something our nation could have done without in a time of crisis. Be that as it may, Roger Gale spoke from the heart against the motion as did many other MPs. Laura Sandys chose not to speak, but voted for the motion so that there was no united Conservative front on the issue even from Thanet. That does not mean Gale is wrong and Sandys right, just that they have different opinions.

In this, as so often with legislatiion, there are deeper issues which will only be fully understood as the bill progresses. It is certainly not over and interesting that the government's law chief voted against.

Sadly, John, the liberal white west, steeped for years in its PC agenda, continues on its path to self destruction. Other than in still heavily white influenced RSA, you will not find the legalisation of gay marriage in the African, Arabic or Asian worlds. Meantime we go headlong down the slippery slope resulting from the undermining of family values and responsible standards, evidenced by our appalling rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

With the country heading to a third dip and Osbourne's economics seems to be having little effect other than creating low paid part time jobs, this issues is nothing more than a tactic by Cammeron to get the economy off the front pages. Cameron should stick to sorting out Osbourne as a priority otherwise nobody will be able to aford to get married in church.

Many have accused Gale of homophobia. That is a serious charge and I doubt they would find any evidence to support it. But there is a reasonable question - which the arrogant Gale and his supporters steadfastly refuse to answer - as to why Gale has opposed every separate measure designed to grant equality to the LGBT section of society. Ignoring same sex marriage, he has opposed every other equality measure. I would guess that had he been an MP in 1967, he would have oposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Why has he always taken this stance? What is the basis for his opposition to equality?

And why does this bible-fuelled MP complain about challenges to the sanctity of marriage when he himself has managed to work his way through three of them?

1207. Your last sentence is a little harsh. Agreed that his first marriage ended in divorce (as regrettably do a sizeable majority nowadays) but unless you are accusing him of murder you can't use this tone over the illness and subsequent death of his second wife.

I take your point. However, 'diverse' & 'different' are not necessarily synonymous. They have nuances of meaning. It is similar with the subtle difference between the words 'equal' & 'same'. It depends on context. I suppose one could argue that it is possible to be diverse or different yet equal before the law. Which I suppose is the gay marriage case.

Meanwhile, over on the blog that leads the lunatic right fringe locally - Thanet Life - I see the conspiracy theorists who are obsessed with TIG and John Worrow are now suggesting Laura Sandys is a TIG sympathiser. And people laugh at the etxremes of opinion and behaviour evidenced in the USA!

Why are those that do not share your opinions, 12:10, lunatics? Unless there are an awful lot of TIGs in Thanet, I would suggest the good Laura's parliamentary career could come to a very abrupt end in 2015. She has backed the wrong horse in Cameron.

Oh dear: that dreadful weasel word 'modernise'. No politician I've ever heard can explain to me exactly what they mean by it; and this includes a government minister who was holding forth on how she was going to modernise our department.

“There is a way forward. It has been suggested but it has been ignored. I do not subscribe to it myself but I recognise the merit in the argument, and that is this; if the government is serious about this, take it away, abolish the civil partnerships bill, abolish civil marriage, and create a civil union bill that applies to all people, irrespective of their sexuality or their relationships, and that means brother and brothers, sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters as well. That would be a way forward. This is not.”

I know what he now says he meant and concede that it is possible that it was what he intended to convey at some level. I do not however concede that Roger naive enough to have missed the implied nuances, most especially with respect to incest nor the further implications related to incest being illegal. In view of that, I wonder do you have any idea of what he was trying to achieve?

I was aware that you took nude photos, but I never realised that was art. As to knowing who you are, only that you pop up on blogs, but I would not recognise you if I passed you in the street so where is your heroism that gives you the right to call others cowards. How you peace and love people can turn nasty when it suits you.

MichaelFor a number of years now I have ignored the continual sniping which accuses you of left-wing bias. Now I am not so sure.You manifest yourself as a thinking man of liberal persuasion but fail to see - deliberately or not - that what Sir Roger was trying to say was where do you draw the line? If the purpose of this exercise is to produce true equality then eventually some incestuous couple will test it in the ECHR and will probably succeed. In fact, I don't think he particularly meant incestuous; he didn't use the word as you have already pointed out elsewhere. I think he meant the not-uncommon households where brother and sister live together in a non-sexual arrangement (there are two such households in my street); they contribute equally to the running of the house and should therefore have the same property rights as married couples.

Tim I am not so sure, I think that fundamentally this is about the regulation of sexual partners and a long history of church and state regulating the situation to produce peaceful and healthy communities at a local and national level.

From a Christian point of view the New Testament has nothing to say about homosexuality and in view of the classical greek and roman influences it would seem unlikely that it wasn’t an issue at the time.

In the UK regulation in any sense comes from the 1500s when the population was low due to various plagues and there weren’t enough workers, our nation at a time when moral issues were very much influenced by the church, addressed this problem by introducing the buggery act and reducing the age of consent to 9.

Now the tables are turned, the population is increasing too fast, however sexually transmitted disease is a problem, the fundamental imperative now being to reduce the population and encourage people to stick with one sexual partner.

Personally I am for equality between homosexual and transgender couples at every level, and I do notice that the transgender aspect of this has hardly been discussed, no one seems to be saying what they think about couples where one of the partners has had a sex change.

I think though the point over what Roger Gale had to say, is that he expressed himself in a way where people were bound to draw the inferences they did. What interests me is did he do so because of his own stupidity. Is his take that it was the other people who drew the inference that he meant incestuous couples that were stupid valid. Or as seems possible to me, that he knew the inferences that would be drawn and said what he said in the way that he said it deliberately. He was after all primarily trying to influence the vote as were those people sending texts accusing people of homophobia.

A fundamental difference here is that incestuous sexual relationships are illegal in the uk whereas same sex sexual relationships are not.

Was Gale deliberately making a controversial point which he knew would cause upset within the homosexual community? Or was this an attempt to make a genuine argument on legislation, although made in such a way it's only understandable with further explanation outside of the House?

Either way, it's not a great position for your MP to put himself into.

(BTW - where was the speaker? Surely he should have made sir Rog explain himself at the time.

Roger was speaking in a debate in the House of Commons and was drawing on exactly the same concerns he had during the progress of the earlier civil partnership Bill before this. MP's understood quite clearly what he meant but Michael, Ian Driver, John Worrow and others clearly didn't!

I agree with you John. My group over the years have tried having meaningful dialogue with "Equality & Diversity Leads" in the various Public Services. They are on vastly inflated salaries and yet seem completely incapable of listening to us. Certainly there is scant feedback if they are working on our behalf, as they are too busy making their linked-in profiles look good for their career moves. This pathetic situation must surely originate from homophobia, whereby politicians have been happy to pay these inflated salaries with our money to middlemen, rather than speak to us direct. Thankfully I do see a thaw on the horizon, for example, Cllr Chris Wells did at least offer to meet last year to discuss issues, but, given as it would appear that Thanet people have been let down so badly by both main political parties on so many things, I am afraid I remain suspicious of them all at present.

I wanted more dialogue with Roger Gale last year when the gay marriage debate kicked off, but because of perceived entrenched positions on both sides of the argument, this was impossible so I stayed quiet. It became evident also that people working in the public sector were pushing the debate and that alarmed me.

I would just add John, that it is not easy for me to come on here and debate with you, and others, since there are still elements in society who are out to harm us. I only intend speaking for myself, and sometimes in the name of my group, which more often than not are one and the same. Diversity and Equality is not something to be "preached" as you say, it is real, it is here, and it is lived. Naturally, I will in future proceed with extreme caution before considering paying you what I considered to be a compliment

In your previous post you stated, "Certainly there is scant feedback if they are working on our behalf, as they are too busy making their linked-in profiles look good for their career moves. This pathetic situation must surely originate from homophobia, whereby politicians have been happy to pay these inflated salaries with our money to middlemen, rather than speak to us direct."

You were unable to make your point without insults and accusations of homophobia. This sounds like bigotory on your part.

I speak from experience John. Our community has complained of being the victims of a tick box culture for many years. We seem to have got into a situation where middlemen live well off of this, and this has let local councillors off the hook as they do do not have to work directly with us, since these people are paid to work with us instead. Its all a bit of an insult don't you think? Obviously, there are no votes in it for them to do so, which is why I appreciated the limited contact I had with Cllr Chris Wells. The point I am trying to make is that fear and divsion comes with a cost to society.

I have accused no-one personally of homophobia, more a kind of collective denial(or homophobia). I am hardly a bigot if I am prepared to come on here to make these points. Has it never worried you that there has been a lot of discussion on these blogs about homosexuality, but no gay people on here to join the discussion? And when someone does show up you make out I have got a chip on my shoulder? Still, I had to start somewhere, and you have been kind enough to respond! Never mind, I am sure we will be the best of friends eventually!

how then John, do you account for Cllr Chris Well's response to my post? I will get around to replying to him at some stage, but I can see you are in the greatest need of being listened to and responded to at this time.

I am puzzled though John, why you are so active in the subject here. Is it because you are gay or bisexual? Or are you just a fan of Roger Gale? What do you suppose Roger would have to say about my ideas for saving some taxpayer money by us all working together? Surely you must have issues, or why contribute to a blog?

Having watched exchanges on here for about three months now, I concede it is quite possible I have unwittingly imitated the style of your Manston Aquifer Man in this instance. It really is nothing personal John, I am just one of a number of people on here with a message to get out. My identity can be checked out with Cllr Chris Wells 12:34 below.

Thank you Alan. As you are well ware, there is no malice in my position, simply a very ral difference in viewing what is and is not equal treatment, rather than spurious equality of language. Marriage is being derided from what it has traditionally been by this process by attempting to hide all difference under one label, rather than recognising real difference, then agreeing appropriate approaches. As with most things, I suspect there are common sense solutions, lost in the shock and awe of demonstration and shouting. Perhaps we get the democracy we deserve in trying to be all things to all people all of the time. Tonights Council meeting contains a plethora of deliberately planted questions and notice of motions, from all sides, designed to personally wound and not enlighten at all. It will be a walking example of dysfunctional behaviour in the context of herd mentality. After all that is done there is going to be a 'sensible' debate on the budget for Thanet......which is bound to be dragged down to the same personal insult swapping level given what precedes it. Dont let your children watch the DVD, it will be exactly what we tell them not to do.

In my experience, such solutions are truly popular with Councillors as long as hey only apply to 'all the other buggers', the speaker themselves being an honourable exception. The two most destructive elements at play here are both brand new term cllrs, so not sure how the ruke may help this time around. It is true they have run rings round some of the older, less quick off the mark cllrs, but have often simply igmored, or been encouraged to ignore, the protocols of the chamber, often by other older, less nimble cllrs. So youth and age play a role together at this time, in terms of being a cllr. It is not a happy place and far too many cllrs are revelling in that gore, always blaming the other lot for their plight. I suspect the solution is simpler. As has been available at national level, if you are in a hung council and no progress is being made, like now, there should be an option to run a re election earlier than the full term.

Chris, Interesting that you addressed me by my first name here at 12.34 on the 7th.

It must be around three years since you approved my application to join Thanet Compact in your capacity as cabinet member for communities? Nothing could have prepared me for what I was to experience in regard to our local authority members!

No one would be in such a mess now if we were listened to via the Thanet Compact, but, no, they had to go and abolish that link.

Our group do have a view about gay marriage, as real, invisible, local people contributing to our local economy; We also have other views to do with how we would like to live our lives on the Isle. I guess no-one will hear them now...

I'm interested in a new uncertainty about what Gale has been spouting. Apart from having his foot firmly planted in his mouth over the principles involved, it seems there is now doubt about his own personal history. Many have lambasted him for preaching against the LGBT community and promoting the sanctity of male/female marriage when he has worked through three marriages of his own. According to Moores, on Thanet Life, his second marriage did not end in divorce; his wife sadly died. Gale apparently said this in a BBC Radio 2 interview yesterday, and Moores says he knows it to be true..

But Wikipedia, the BBC, Westminster Parliamentary Record, and several other reference sources, say that his second marriage in 1971 to Linda Sampson - which produced one of his three children - ended in divorce in 1980.

I find it amazing that, if that is incorrect, Gale has not sought to amend the records. The alternative interpretation is that an attempt is now being made to airbrush his personal history to make his stance look a little less hypocritical than it obviously is. Did he lie on Radio 2 yesterday? If so, does he have ANY credibility left? Can someone establish the definitive truth?

Adding to my last post, I have just listened to Gale's Radio 2 interview and have transribed the relevant part. Challenged over his personal history of three marriages, he said:

“I was first married when I was 21. It was a mistake. We agreed to part amicably and we did so. I was married a second time. Sadly my wife of that time and the mother of my daughter ultimately died of cancer. That was a tragedy.”

He went on to refer to his current marriage to "Suzie".

He clearly wanted to give the impression that he lost his second wife to cancer, but if the various sources are correct, that is not so. He divorced her before her "eventual", and sad, death. If this is true, then this - and Moores's promotion of the attempted subterfuge - are utterly, utterly shameful.

And I suppose no gay ever had more than one relationship. You are surely having a laugh, 6:06, and, in any event, divorce is not illegal and the fact someone has had more than one marriage does not alter the principle that marriage is between a man and a womon for the procreation of species and the upbringing of children. Gale made a speech on a debate, he gave his message and all you are doing is attacking and seeking to discredit the messenger.

What about your background, are you whiter than white, but then we will never know because you are anonymous.

I have no problem or issue with people (gay or straight) being divorced, "Tom Clarke", or having a string of relationships. I do, however, have a problem with elected politicians a) ever seeking to occupy the moral high ground and specifically b) lecturing others on the sanctity of male/female marriage when they themselves have broken marriages behind them. I have a dislike of hypocrisy.

The POINT here is the tactics being used in what has been a very charged debate. Gale has sought to convey a clear impression, under pressure about the perceived hypocrisy of his position, that he has been divorced only once. His mouthpiece on the local blogosphere, Moores, has underwritten Gale's "claim". If the reference sources are correct, then Gale has been divorced TWICE. Twice divorced - fine by me. Not fine that he is trying to convey a very different outcome of his second marriage to the listening public. Not fine that the Tory Party machine is trying to spread the "alternative" history.

If the reference sources are wrong, then there is no attempted subterfuge. So what is the position?

I know smokescreens and subversion are your chosen response to any challenge to the Tory Party, but the facts are stacking up against you here. As for your very silly question about my background, who cares? I am not taking a moral stance. I am not a Councillor or MP. I am not challenging anyone else's rights or morality. I am not condemning Gale for being divorced.

You are effectively dismissing Roger Gale's opinion on an issue he feels strongly about because what you percieve, or have rather conveniently made, an issue over his own marriages. Did he ever say he had only been divorced once or are you assuming that because both Tim Clark and Simon Moore have said his second wife died. How would they know if in fact this couple had divorced first yet you trumpet this as though it is some Tory cover up. Whast utter rubbish.

You also accuse me of smokescreens over a challenge to the Tory party so let's get this straight once and for all. I am not a member of the Conservative party, I have absolutely no time for Cameron who I dislike almost as intensely as I hate the Labour party. In essence I abhor what politicians have done to this country, but I also have no time for blinkered bigots who only ever see one side of an issue.

Yes, thus protecting the dog's rights to the matrimonial home should the human partner die first. Then, of course, are those poor souls who, due to an imbalance of hormones, or some odd mix in their evolutionary DNA, fancy animals. Surely consenting adult humans and animals should be able to fulfill and express their love in private.

"Tom Clarke", I am not even commenting on Gale's opinions. I am commenting only on his presentation and tactics. I have no issue at all with his divorces, as I have CLEARLY said. Surely, even with your blogging track-record of twisting, fact-avoidance and misrepresentation, you cannot expect anyone (else) to believe that Gale was doing other than trying to convey the impression that his second marriage ended with the (sad) death of his wife. Moores CHALLENGED an anonymous commentator - not me - who referred to Gale's reported two divorces, saying:

"as he mentioned on Radio 2, he married young and went through a divorce with his first wife, but his second died tragically of illness. I would hardly call that a failure on his part, would you?".

You may not be able to see what is going on here, but fortunately most readers are not as (willfully) blind as you.

Whatever, 7:28, and you as always will put your interpretation on things and broke no argument. I am equally sure other readers will also be aware of that though, to be honest, I really don't care. This country is f***ked and there is nothing you or I can do about it.

"Tom Clarke", let's just leave the facts - what Gale said on the radio, what Moores has promoted on his behalf, and the contrary information that is on unchallenged record - here and let any interested readers form their own judgement. Some will share my concerns, some will not. My exchange with you is adding nothing of further value or relevance.

It's your choice to roll over and believe all the utterances of right-wingers like Gale. It must make them sleep more easily to have such gullible cannon-fodder, and willing evangelists, in their entourage. I doubt any reader will have been interested in our squabbles - why should they care when we don't? - but yeah, they will undoubtedly be able to make up their minds about respective merits.

Why must you put people into categories, 8:50, simply because they do not toe your line. I am a no winger, generally disillusioned with the political class and finding little to cheer in any of the party alternatives. I have a view on Equal Marriage which is closer to that of Gale than Cameron, but that does not make me a gullible right winger as you would have it. I also fail to see what the fact that someone has been divorced has to do with their views on the issue. Perhaps, because someone once had sardines on toast, that would prevent them speaking out against whaling!

Tell me, you being such an expert on where people stand politically, what is the difference between where Cameron is taking the Conservative party to where Blair took Labour. Also, whatever happened to all those excellent Sir Humphreys who once kept clueless ministers on the right track. Seems now that the civil service is as inept as its political masters.

I was in the Civil Service during the years of New Labour. I watched as Blair politicised it. Blair poisoned the Civil Service with his race to mediocrity. The Heads of Department, many with double firsts from Oxbridge and brains that could boil water, were confounded and bemused by Blair's spiv politics. He ran rings around them.

You have confirmed my suspicions, John, but it is just part of this overall gallop by the liberal left to undermine age old standards in the cause of so called modernisation. Mediocrity is the order of the day supplemented by the destruction of values, family life, morals, decency and honour. What makes it worse is that modern conservatism, Cameron style, is all part of the liberal left thus leaving those who want to make a stand the only option of moving to the far right. I suppose the only good thing about a new Hitler would be seeing Polly Toynbee and half the BBC hierachy led away.

For some reason, I missed the bit where he was supposedly implying incest. How did I miss it? I'm educated, ahhhh - that's it. Just like John Holyer at 1006 yesterday, I was able to understand the speech rather than jump off on some weird leftish dribble making assumptions.

I am also a church going Christian (no, I'm not a pensioner - I'm around 40 years old, which is older than average in the 200+ congregation at my church). The Christian Bible is against homosexuality - as is the Old Testament and the Koran. Marriage is setting forward your intentions in front of God - allowing homosexuals to marry is akin to saying that you can break any laws you like if you think they are a bit inconvenient (yes, I know that the uneducated out there will not understand that statement and decide that I'm saying something that I'm not).

11.26 I think there is a problem with trying to use various religious texts to support your argument which is while the they all seem to come down very heavily on sexual lust, prostitution, pederasty and so on, none of them seem to have much to say about homosexual love and long term homosexual relationships, distinct from heterosexual ones.

In terms of the Christian Bible, here I guess you mean the New Testament, it is very uncertain whether it mentions homosexuality at all, the Greek words used that may apply, are not specific to homosexuality and mean prostitution or pederasty both heterosexual and homosexual.

My take is that the Christian church has historically interpreted what text there is, to be most beneficial to the human race and survival of our species, which for most of the past two millennia has been to increase the population.

Obviously the imperative now with population increase becoming a very real threat to the survival of mankind, religious interpretations are on the change, historically this has always taken time, but they are changing and I think will continue to do so.

Underlying all of this it the problem of making a Religious case against human love and long term stable relationships, most especially in the case of Christianity.

Sologays I think you will find that if you click on John Holyer’s name at the beginning of any of his comments the links will take you to his website which contains a detailed history of his family.

You seem to be suggesting that Chris Wells would confirm, perhaps give a name to an identity that you have used on this occasion, as this isn’t even a signed on blogger identity anyone can and if they want to impersonate you probably will, I just don’t see Chris, who has a reasonable grasp of both blogger and the internet would do this.

Anon 1126, you believe in an institution which is based on fantastical stories, where I believe in the human race and the people walking the earth today.

If people of the same sex want to get together, get married, buy a house, raise kids, then let them. Some ancient sect with ancient thinking that has no place in lawmaking in the 21st century is not going to stop this from happening.

Keep your idols and ideals to yourselves and we'll get on with our lives.

Well done BBC for de-bunking his meaningless title, awarded for services rendered to his Party - certainly not his constituents. Better to stick with plain "Gale". As for "Tom Clarke", even with your pompous blustering, you are still a very silly commentator!

I take it, 11:52, that you have no problem with the BBC affording the title 'Sir' to a red faced, bad tempered, match official slagging off, foul mouthed, gum chewing football manager. Whatever you or I may think of titles, and there are several I would consider undeserved, they are, nonetheless, the system in this country at present and those so honoured are entitled to be so addressed, particularly by the state broadcaster.

Strange that the constituents you consider Sir Roger has not served keep re-electing him. Perhaps it is you that is the silly commentator.

They elect him because he is a Conservative, which is the natural political slant of North Thanet. I doubt his majority relies much, if at all, on the candidate being Gale. Receiving a £70000 salary, paying your wife a full salary out of your expenses, and occupying a safe seat, should not attract an honour. And if you think honour is demonstrated by seeking to airbrush your past to make your hypocrisy less obvious, then you enjoy your squalid morality. You and Gale are in good company.

Anon 1:48, if you had any real confidence in your case you would not need to always dismiss the comments of others as stupid and besmirch their characters. That you do demeans you and your comments more than it does them and theirs.

Why don't you enlighten us, Mr Holyer? I believe it was for "public and political service" which is rather in line with my point. Obviously his salary, and paying his wife a salary out of his expenses wasn't enough of a reward. Is he now up for a drama award for his creative attempt at airbrushing his personal marital history?

What has his marital history got to do with anything. By the way, what is your marital history, 4:03, or did you never find anyone stupid enough to take you on. You are very brave hiding behind your anonymous comments so I tell you what, if you reall;y have the courage of your convictions, tell us who you are and then I will do likewise. Then we can meet up and continue this discussion face to face. I will not hold my breath on your response.

Anonymous, you have chosen not to reveal your identity. So have I. So do the vast majority of other contributors to these blogs, including those who use names like "Tom Clarke", for identification purposes only. It is open to any blog-owner to prohibit anonymous comments if they wish to do so. I would guess the number of comments would drop massively.

My personal history is irrelevant, since I am not lecturing anyone about the sanctity of marriage. Gale is. I am not criticising him for being divorced - it matters not one jot to me. What matters is (apparently) trying to mask the fact that you have been divorced twice, when under pressure in a public debate, by referring to your second wife "dying tragically" when you had in fact divorced her first.

Holding your breath could be dangerous since it will cut off the supply of oxygen to your vital organs.

Anonymous, precisely what is is it that you wish to discuss face to face? And what benefit would you, or I, or anyone else, draw from it - or what purpose would a discussion serve? I am not in a position to exert influence over others - are you?

It seems that all to often when exchanges become intense, someone pops up with a reference to anonymity, and claims of cowardice against those who choose to blog anonymously. Those who take a stance against the Tory Party are invariably labelled "trolls" as a term of abuse, and remarks are made about "missing medication", "needing to get out more", or other references to mental illness as a term of abuse. Apart from revealing the despicable nature of some on the political right, it is a sadly infantile syndrome. Bottom line is the response from the political right when the argument is stacked against them is personal insult.

John, how could you possible suggest that anyone on the left could be despicable. The odd few may go to prison for fiddling their expenses, Labour ministers may have resigned over dodgy passports and mortgage applications, the Labour DPM may have thought the office typist was one of the job perks but, despicable, never. They are all good chaps who make the odd slip up. Nothing malicious intended. It is only those nasty Tories who are ever despicable.

I really do not mind anyone commenting anonymously until they resort to insults that they would not be prepared to say face to face, that is what I mean. Why also do you confine your accusations to the political right. I have seen some pretty unpleasant name calling from those on the left of the spectrum around the Thanet blogs at times. After all, I do not think ill manners is confined to any one political party. As for your comment about resorting to insults, you have not been slow to do so yourself.

Anon, in your posts today you have said, to me, "did you ever find anyone stupid enough to take you on [in a relationship]". You subsequently accused me of being "gutless". Both are gratuitous insults, but we don't know each other and so your comments have no material impact. I have said NOTHING insulting to you.

There are despicable people in all walks of life and in all political groupings. They are often most despicable towards their supposed allies, with back-stabbing being a fairly populist sport. Whatever, my point is based on evidence from local blogs over a long period. The insults I identified above have always come from those seeking to promote the political right. They have usually started when the heat is turned up a bit and they are on the back foot in debate - as now with the attempts to defend Gale's airbrushing of his divorce history. I'm sure that on other blogs in other areas similar behaviour will hail from the political left on issues precious to them. But I am basing my comments on local fact, not universal supposition.

You will have to excuse my appalling lack of curiosity, but I have no interest in your identity. I have never sought to establish who anonymous bloggers might be. I have never criticised the use of anonymity. I have never dangled threats of "exposing" anonymous bloggers as several on the political right have done. If anyone on the left has done the same, then apologies, I've missed it.

What would be the point in two anonymous bloggers meeting to debate - what exactly?

Expanding your point about insults to a wider spectrum, for the record I think the stupid accusations and name-calling that have been levelled at those on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate have lowered the tone and distracted from the core issues of principle involved. Some of those in faith groups and the churches, and some of those in liberal campaiging groups should feel ashamed over the tactics they have employed.

So where does this leave us with your issue then John, in relation to your guess that sologays and Manston Aquifer Man are one and the same? Of course, I am assuming you continue to believe that neither person's argument has any merit?

Michael, thankyou for your earlier comment about being impersonated. I shall keep an eye out for such imposters!

Oh yes, of course, you were the stallholder profiting from the small bags of crumbs you sold to the unsuspecting to throw to the helicopters. Up I threw them, to see what might happen? But back they fell onto stony ground......and I wept........

John Holyer, as a fellow contributor with whom I often agree, I thought I would enlighten you about some of our co-contributors. Sologays is a chap called Alan involved with promoting gay issues, but nothing to do with the aquifer man. Probably far more intelligent.

The aquifer man is a simple minded soul, rather bitter and twisted and with his record stuck firmly in the same groove. He makes, or regularly repeats, the same allegations, never with any proof, and then insults anyone who questions them.

Then there is yet another regular anonymous, another gay man, civil servant, was off long term sick, devoted union member, steeped in left wing bigotry and who hates Simon Moores and anyone he percieves as right of Nye Bevan. Often referred to as a 'troll' which he also hates, self righteous, not slow to insult, but quick to claim he doesn't. Always refers to me as "Tom Clarke" as though somehow the inverted commas suggest that I am anything but what I claim to be. Seems to have no concept of the fact that a google account is much easuer to trace than a simple anonymous. Treats anyone who argues with him as a right wing bigot and has no knowledge of a world outside the Labour/Tory divide.

They are three different people with very different axes to grind. Personally I find Sologays the least obnoxious and even having a sense of humour, often sadly lacking around Thanet.

Sologays in a general sense I would recommend putting the horse before the cart and joining blogger, and fiddling with it so your comments come up a Sologays in blue like say Tom Clarke does, before something nasty happens, this doesn’t in any way effect your anonymity, but does make things easier if you get involved in a heated debate. Be assured that no one including myself and other blog administrators will have any more clue as to your identity.

In the light of Tom Clarke's explanation I apologise for accusing you of being the Manston Aquifer Man. Consequently, I now realise that it must have been someone else that I spotted on the cliff feeding helicopters.

Solgays a very easy way to do this is, once you have joined blogger, is to set up an innocuous blog that no one will ever look at, post and comment on it, then follow all the links to make sure that you have set everything right and you privacy is protected. After this you can either keep the blog for testing purposes or just delete it.

I think I/we probably do need to keep our voice out here Michael. I Just was not expecting to get this involved, since I only started computing at home with this old 2nd hand PC of mine six months ago. Still, I think some worthwhile points have been raised on all sides; most especially, as you explain, how to blog safely. Thanks again.

"Tom Clarke" what a helpful little thing you are, trying to summarise what you believe you have gleaned about people - which of course is only what details (true or untrue) have been shared with you - and then parading them so publicly. And again you display this obsession of yours - and the "select" few who have the same pre-occupation - with tracing and outing bloggers who choose to remain anonymous. Just as YOU are anonymous.

As I have already said, there is a little collection of threats, insults, insinuations and jibes that are obviously in your little blue book and always emerge when challenges are being made successfully to you and a few others of a similar disposition - when you (and your "select" cronies) are on the back foot. Clearly there is embarrassment "in the camp" over Gale's attempt on radio to massage information about his past - cue thumbing through your little blue pages. It's all happened before, when the backgrounds and questionable claimed achievements of others was aired on the blogs, and I've no doubt it will happen again. There's nowt so fierce as a little blue book holder scorned.

Your identity and background are of no concern or interest to me, but your blogging record of fact-avoidance, turning one of your faces away from evidence, misrepresentation and twisting is there for all to see on the back pages of Ville Views.

I have not faintest idea what your point is. I will however accept that you know, and that you have dealt with it to your own satisfaction.

It is amazing how you make a gratuitous rude comment and then complain shrilly when you receive rudeness in return. Maybe you court rudeness because you enjoy receiving it. It reinforces your image of yourself as a hapless put upon victim.

Still, I expect it all makes sense to you in your lonely anonymous mind.

Mr Holyer, please show where I have said anything even remotely rude or insulting to or about me. You need to beat "cretin", which was your offering to me, and which several authorities say is a term of abuse or insult. And how can one be shrill in writing? I haven't written dverything in capitals, which is usually classed as shouting.

Mr Holyer, you are almost as funny as that other little wag, "Tom Clarke" - who I've discovered today has a quotation mark phobia. Poor thing. Unfortunately, like him, you are obviously prone to dhhot crom the hip without any basis, reason or evidence. But I forgive you.

Holyer seems to alternate between being rude and thick now with the old trick of accusing others of the same - what was this debate about? Gays? Incest? Helicopters? All we need now is Clarkey to comment to stifle it completely.

Is that a personal best for John Holyer? No fewer than 30 "contributions" to this thread, during which he has added nothing, beyond repeating his unoriginal and unfunny "anonymouse" joke for the umpteenth time. And before you make the claim Mr H, yes I am the aquifer chap if that makes you happy, as you always assume there is only the one person with views contrary to your own.

Apologies, Mr Holyer, for the two words of jibberish in the middle of my last post. "Dhhot crom" was meant to be "shooting from". Goodness knows how that happened. And thank you for adding intellectual snobbery to your list of credentials. I have seen bloggers commenting on spelling and grammar in others' contributions before, but you are clearly prone to take that sort of unnecessary lecturing to a new height. Personally, I don't think that anyone who throws cheap insults around as you do, and then retreats into denial, is in a good position to try and teach.

Your tactics, of course, like "Tom Clarke's", are simply designed to deflect attention from the core issue, and are deployed scatter-gun style, because you are so hoplessly on the back foot. The has-been MP you and little "Tom" are working so hard to defend has been caught red-handed trying to make his personal marital history look rather less full of divorce than it in fact is. His divorce record - which in itself is of no conern or relevance whatsoever - makes his lecturing of others on the sanctity of marriage look like base hypocrisy. Which it is. This has even been picked up in radio comedy programmes. Gale is a joke.

If Gale is a joke he is a repeatedly elected one with a knighthood and a good track record of service to constituents and charities. What is your claim to fame, 9:15.

As for me working hard to deflect attention from the man's marital record, someone here suffers from vivid imagination. My point would be that what has his marital record got to do with his views on so called 'Equal Marriage?' I do not know whether he divorced his second wife or whether he was widowed, but it makes no difference in my opinion for who are any of us to judge our fellow man on their relationships alone. In Thanet in particular, we have witnessed much name calling and trauma in the council over members personal relationships though it should be irrelevant. As I said elsewhere, would I be denied an opinion on high seas whaling because I once had sardines on toast?

Anon 9:15, you love to put me into a box of your choosing, but, as you accused me of doing earlier, we can only know of each other what we are told whether that be fact or fiction. I know what I am not and I am far from little, I am not a conservative and I have views formed from a strongly socialist upbringing followed by a well travelled military/police/security orientated career.

I accept your apology. However, I cannot take credit for discovering gibberish in your comments; there is much there from which to choose. By the way the correct spelling is 'gibberish' and not 'jibberish' as you wrote.

How can you possibly accuse me of being a snob bearing in mind that I am talking to you.

"Tom Clarke", you clearly have no problem or issue with Gale deliberately trying to massage his personal history "on air". Fine. You clearly have no problem with his trying to pass off his second wife's death as the reason for their marriage ending when in fact he divorced her before she died. Fine. You clearly have no problem or issue with his lecturing others on the sanctity of marriage when he has two divorces behind him. Fine.

But some people do have a problem with it. Some people find hypocrisy unacceptable. You need to accept that. Get over it, as they say.

You also clearly support Gale's long tradition of opposing EVERY measure designed to give equality to those in the LGBT section of society, and perhaps you know - I certainly don't - what principle, prejudice or whatever, lies beneath this opposition. Fine.

As for your own personal background, I'm sure some will be interested in your history. Personally, I couldn't give a ****. But although it is in keeping with your sneaky school-playground tactics, broadcsasting summaries of what you believe are the backgrounds of others just leaves you in the corner sucking your thumb and trying to attach teacher's attention.

10:03, if I might jump on on what seems to be your personal obsession with Tom Clarke, I would have to say that if a MP feels various LGBT liberalisation measures were wrong, then he has a right to vote against them. There are many people who disagree with the proposals for Equal Marriage, so does that make Laura Sandys wrong to vote for it. It was a free vote on members own conscience and whilst we may not agree with the way individuals voted it was their right to do so and their personal marital status is irrelevant.

I do not agree with Equal Marriage on religious grounds but I am not attacking Laura Sandys over the way she voted or delving into her marital background. She did what she thought was right as did Sir Roger. How about you live with it.

"Tom Clarke", you must try to cure your obsession with matters gay. "Attach" should have been "attract". Apologies that I have been inattentive to the odd actions of spell-checker. As for insults, you have accused me of insulting you many times before, so your point is, well, pointless. I think most observers can see through your little games, but if they give you pleasure... Now trot off back to your corner of the playground and find something useful to do.

"Allam Mallinsdon", the issue is WHY Gale has voted against every measure to give equality to the LGBT section of society. What is the basis for his judgement that equality is wrong? Does he feel the same about equality issues affecting those of different race or those with a disability? What I have asked - and it isn't just about same sex marriage - is WHY he is so opposed. If he subscribes to his bible so strongly, and believes that being gay is sinful, or whatevr else is said in that book, then why not come out and say so? And I don't think Sandys has been lecturing anyone in this debate or behaving hypocritically. That is the distinction between her and Gale.

As for Mr Holyer, again, you are as funny as little "Tom(my) Clarke" who is over there in the corner of the playground - all on his own. I'm sure he'd love you to join him, but do mind the puddle. You can have a two-person spelling bee, or draw pictures of Mr Gale and pin them up on the wall, or find new rude words to use against those who expose your antics and games. But, as Joyce Grenfell would have said "George, don't do THAT."

I guess insults, rudeness, and plain silliness are all that are left to you, Mr Holyer, when your arguments have been so effectively defeated. But again, thank you for demonstrating so powerfully my point about the tactics and behaviours of you and your friends and allies when you are on the back foot. Now off you go back to "Tom(my)" in the playground, but play NICELY...

It's taken you a while to get round to "troll", but then I assume your instruction book and list of insults is in alphabetical order, Mr Holyer. Again, thanks. Your contributions and language have revealed far more about you and your "arguments" than any of my challenges could have done. Give little "Tom[my]" my regards.

Thanks, John, but I was managing quite nicely with out them. He is a bit light on debating skills and don't you just love the way that it is iur arguments that are effectively defeated. As a point of interest, have you ever seen him make a case for anything yet other than attempt to put words into other people's statements or deliberately miscontrue what they have said.

I suppose to referring to me as little or placing me in some quadrangle setting is supposed to be funny or get under my skin. How sweet, but then he is not to know that I have very pleasant recollections of school days. I think he is a bit rattled and really wants to insult you and I. Shame he is so short on vocabluary.

"Tom[my]" and John, what a charming double act you make. But you must stop huffing and puffing or you'll blow both your houses down. And that would be a sad thing.

I don't think these exchanges are adding anything to the case I have put forward - contrary to your, as ever, wild and inaccurate claims, "Tom[my]" - about Gale and his attempt to re-present his own history and mask his crass hypocrisy, or my questions about his (apparently bible-fuelled) opposition to equality for LGBTs. You are trying - and failing - to continue to use cheap insults and rather circular claims to deflect attention from those core issues.

You are not succeeding. Be careful - too much tenacity could lead (back) to bed-wetting.

That is as maybe, but you do use childish nicknames like Tommy, draw silly parrallels with playgrounds and then plaigarise nursery rhymes.

I am not defending Roger Gale's marriage history, I simply consider it irrelevant. You seem uptight because he voted against 'Equal' marriage. Please grow up, Loaura Sandys voted for the proposal, but I am not lampasting her. I am prepared to accept that it was her choice.

As for your earlier comment about me having an obsession with gay matters. Far from it. I was born straight, never had any doubts about my sexual orientation and really could not give a fig what turns on other people behind closed doors. I just don't want the doors opened for all to see and have it perpetually shoved down our throats as though sexual preference was anythging to be proud of it. It ain't, it is just natural.

Tommy is not my name, but since we are into such silliness I will christen you Pinky arising out of your love for childish nonsense. No doubt you have a friend Perky somewhere as well. Not sure about Monday yet but sandpit day sounds a lot better than hanging round public loos day.

It's quite simple - according to the Bible (new and old testaments) and the Koran, homosexuality is wrong (those of you, who don't believe in a creator are in the minority, by the way). So allowing marriage of poofs is wrong.

Homosexuality has been proven as a curable illness - it's just nor trendy to say that at the moment.

As a Christian, I believe 100% that it is a method used by the devil to get people away from believing in God, by making them do wrong.

And to the few out there who don't believe in God, a simple question - What started the universe?And don't just say 'the big bang' - what caused it and what was before the beginning? Once you look at the impossible situation you have created, and claim to believe in, you'll realise that the 'fantasy' of God is a lot more believable and realistic than your impossible views.

How nice to see a fundamentalist christian finishing off a sunday with bible-fuelled crap. Apart from your scriptural analysis being wrong, Anon, your use of the word "poof" entitles me to call you a god-bothering bible-basher.

Sorry, Anon of 10.27, but I don't intend to engage in "debate" with a misguided religious fundamentalist who uses offensive language to advance their lunatic theories. For your information, I am an atheist, but respect your right to believe in a god. It's a shame that you clearly have no respect for those who don't share your particular belief.

Offensive language, pray where I ask? Perhaps simpleton as an alternative to believer or perhaps it is believer itself that you dislike. Nice to see you find someone elses views misguided but then contradict that by saying you respect their right to believe in a God. Ever occurred to you that maybe its your views that are misguided, that it is you that is an offence to everything the creator intended and that there is nothing in what you say or claim to stand for that any person could respect.

I feel so very sorry for you - not only are you an atheist, but you seem proud to try and push over said fact. I feel great pity for you being in a state where you don't believe in a God of any description.

For myself, and also for any true Christian out there, it is our duty to try and educate you and stop you believing in the mad, impossible (the laws of physics alone tell us that atheism is impossible), fantasy world/history you are currently deluded by. I said 'duty', but it is more than that - God so loved you that he sent his only son to die on the cross, for you. My hopes to rescue you away from believing in the weird and impossible concept of atheism is not a duty, they are things that any Christian would want do - out of love.

I am not sure about my using offensive language. I simply told the truth - that homosexuality is a proven medical illness that can be cured. I'm sorry that you can find a true statement to be offensive, when it is a fact. But, hey, I can be so radical in my views that I'll also be very offensive and call Hitler and Bin Laden mass murdering, low-life, scum who deserved to he hung, drawn and quartered. There, I've just been very offensive - but also told the truth. Or do you find this comment to also be something that shouldn't be said?

When I said 'simpleton' I was using it in its pure and true form - a simpleton being one who has simple views. That is not offensive - again it is simply telling the truth (a concept that atheists might have problems with - as they seem to live in cloud cuckoo land).

You seem to have simple views on the world and how it started.So simple, that they are impossible to be true (back to the laws of physics again), yet they fit with the closeted views of someone who doesn't believe.It is a simple fact - the opposite of a believer can only have very simple views, so is a simpleton.

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.

Saturday for me was pure self indulgence, so first I went to Canterbury Cathedral, I have to admit that I find advent one of the hardest ...

recent comments

Local history facilities.

Much of the local history I publish is available for free on this blog, in some cases I have linked whole books to blog postings, if you want a printed copy of one of the books I publish click here postage is free to UK addresses.

Alternatively you can of course come to my bookshop in Ramsgate and browse them and about 30,000 secondhand books on other subjects, remember we close Thursdays and Sundays.